jackiedoherty.org

Please note: this is Margaret writing 

Yesterday while strolling down Middle Street, I saw a bumper sticker that read “Democracy needs Dissent.” In light of some of the dissension on the school committee these days and repeated calls for everyone to get along, I think we should heed these words. Sure, it is nice to present a united front, to have everyone agree and get along; however, I think putting harmony first, relegating the inevitable disagreements to the backroom, does a disservice to voters. Without public discussion, handled in an orderly fashion according to Robert’s Rules, how will the voters ever clearly see what a candidate stands for, what philosophy drives them and what they are willing to fight for? As an informed voter, I want to see our elected officials stand up for their beliefs and argue for them in an open forum. Yes, it can get messy, it can be stressful, but that’s what democracy is all about. In the past, I felt that there was a reluctance to stand up to city hall, the local media, or even question the delegation; it seemed concerned parents had no one to speak their case, so we had to speak up ourselves. Maybe our new superintendent will have an uphill battle at first, but if people pay attention and see who exactly is blocking progress, they can speak up at meetings, contact the committee, and organize other like-minded people to do the same. It’s not easy, it’s not comfortable, but that’s what it takes.

As you might recall, the motion to require that city employees be residents of Lowell was sent to subcommittee (see previous rant).  We heard from City Councilor, Kevin Broderick, who is chair of the Personnel Subcommittee, that they will meet next Tuesday, March 26, at 6:O0 pm, in the council chambers (thanks for the prompt reply, Kevin!).  They will be discussing the residency issue at that time. The meeting will be broadcast live on Channel 10, so tune in or show up to find out what the subcommittee will decide.  Speaking of the city council, a motion came up last night to reduce the council schedule by half, that is to meet every other week instead of weekly.  This was also sent to subcommittee (Rules, chaired by Councilor Milinazzo), but it appears to have majority support (see Dick’s post).  Since I didn’t watch the meeting (I do have a life; I was busy watching the video of the superintendent interviews on LTC), I’m not sure what the rationale is for the motion.   I certainly don’t recall any talk of either of these issues during the campaign last fall.  It would be interesting to track peoples’ campaign rhetoric to their actual actions on the council; it might bridge the reality gap between what is said to attract voters and what the candidate really cares about. But, like I said, I have a life….

I didn’t get to stay long because of family commitments this afternoon, but I did spend some time with about 30 other Democrats discussing the presidential campaign with Senator John Kerry at the Blue Shamrock.  It was a rare opportunity for me to discuss issues of national importance with our senator, who was completely at ease and candid with the group, many of whom he knew by name. Put somewhat on the defensive by outspoken Hillary supporters in the crowd, Kerry explained his reasoning for endorsing Obama:  namely, he thinks Obama can win the country even though he agreed that both candidates were intelligent and capable. Kerry argued that the “Obama lacks experience” position doesn’t hold weight with him; he also went out of his way to assure the group that whoever doesn’t win the Democratic nomination will work to bring his or her people onboard to support the nominee. As Kerry sees it, the overarching goal is to make sure we don’t end up with another four years of Republican leadership, and in the best interests of the people, the party, and the future of our country, the candidates will work together in the end, regardless of who is the nominee.  Let’s hope he’s right.

This just in by phone from Senator John Kerry’s office: He will be at the Blue Shamrock, 105 Market Street, at 12:30 on Sunday, March 16, to meet with residents for a general gathering. Perhaps he’s visiting the Mill City in preparation for the Democratic State Convention, which will be held in Lowell on June 7, or to line up support against potential challengers in next fall’s election? Perhaps he just wants to chat with Lowell folks for something to do on a Sunday afternoon. One thing for sure: it’s not easy to get his ear, so it’s worth a trip downtown if you want a few minutes with our senator. (I visited D.C. last year with a delegation of Mass. School Committee members and we ended up speaking to his aide.) In fairness, Senator Kennedy’s not that accessible either–unless you’re lucky and quick with elevators–but that’s a story for another day…

Tonight, the school committee will interview the two local candidates of the four finalists for the position of superintendent of Lowell Schools.  The interviews will be held in city council chambers beginning at 6:30 pm and will be televised live on Channel 10.  (The second set of interviews will be held tomorrow night, same time and place and also broadcast live.) The rebroadcast schedule is:

Both sets of interviews will be available for viewing on  LTC streaming video by Monday, 3/17, so people can watch them anytime from their computers.

Each interview will get a total of 4 replays on alternating days, beginning with the Thursday interviews (Schlictman & Jack):  Saturday, 3/15 at 1:00 pm; Monday, 3/17 at noon; Thursday, 3/20 at noon; and Saturday, 3/22 at 2:00 pm. The Friday interviews (Scott and Bonner) will air as follows:  Sunday, 3/16 at 1:00 pm; Tuesday, 3/18 at 10:00 am; Friday, 3/21 at 3:00 pm; Sunday, 3/23 at 2:00 pm. 

Despite the cynical comments by Sun editors, who seem to think the committee has made up its mind without even interviewing the candidates, each of the four will have a chance to answer questions and state their qualifications for the job in a public forum.  Residents have a role in this process; it is important to watch the interviews and communicate your impressions by contacting the entire committee  and/or writing a letter to the editor.  The school committee will make its decision on Monday, March 24, in a meeting at council chambers, televised live on channel 10, beginning at 6:30.

Frustrated is an understatement regarding how I felt when I first learned in yesterday’s Sun that interviews with the superintendent finalists had been set for next week. As the school committee, we were due to decide this and other search issues at our March 19 meeting. Our bylaws do not allow some members (or one mayor) to make such a change—the rules require us to make decisions as a group in public meetings. So now there will be a special school committee meeting on Monday, March 10 at 7 pm in the Mayor’s Reception Room. The public is invited to attend and be heard on this issue.

Granted, the search committee named their finalists one week earlier than the timetable required, but to schedule interviews without the entire committee’s knowledge and approval (I wasn’t the only one in the dark) and without public discussion, is wrong. This is the school committee’s most important decision. The final vote will impact the quality of education our children receive for years—better to pick the right candidate and have citizens participate than rush the process.

So, here’s my wish list: All the interviews are held on one Saturday morning with ample public notice. Before that, the entire committee decides the date and format for the interviews, determines if there are other candidates to include, develops a process for on-site visits, and hears from the community. Now, I may not get all my wishes but I should get the opportunity to present them to my colleagues in an open forum, debate our differences, and vote; in which case, the majority will prevail. That, my friends, is how democracy is supposed to work.

Did you watch breathlessly to see the results of the residency requirement vote at the City Council meeting on Tuesday night?  If so, you were disappointed (or relieved, perhaps). After all the brouhaha over the residency requirement, it got shuttled off to subcommittee without debate or discussion.  This begs the question:  who is on the subcommittee and when do they meet?  The first part of the question is easy since all the subcommittees are listed on the excellent city website.  (The Personnel Subcommittee to whom the motion was referred is chaired by Kevin Broderick with Bill Martin and Jim Milinazzo as members.)  Subcommittees meet as necessary, so it is a little more tricky to find out when a particular topic will be handled.  When I called the office of the City Clerk they didn’t have any information about when this subcommittee would be meeting or whether or not it would be televised.  As we said before, all city council and school committee subcommittee meetings are open to the public.  But if the public doesn’t know when they are meeting, it effectively puts the meeting ‘behind closed doors.’ 

This gets back to a pet peeve of mine about the overuse of subcommittees.  It lets debates and decisions happen out of the public eye. The effort to televise these meetings is ongoing and important.  There needs to be a public record of what is happening in an elected body that is outside the regular, more public meetings.  This holds true for the city council and the school committee (see list of school subcommittees on related page).  Let’s pay attention, people, and see what our leaders are doing when we’re not looking.

If you’re paying attention to politics these days, maybe you feel as disheartened as I do. No matter where I look—whether it’s state, local or national—it seems true public service is thwarted by power plays, personal allegiances, and partisan maneuverings where the common good is the victim in pursuit of another agenda. Perhaps it was always this way and I just wasn’t paying attention (most of us aren’t), but as someone who is intimately involved at the seemingly benign level of the school committee, it is discouraging when our leaders do not rise above human frailty and do the right thing. 

At the state level, we have House Speaker Sal DiMasi locking horns with Governor Deval Patrick, and although I recognize these men may have a sincere difference of opinion regarding gambling, why have so many other pressing initiatives been blocked without even a hint of compromise? (Okay, so maybe DiMasi’s recent concession regarding closing corporate tax loopholes is a good step, albeit a baby one, but it should have happened last year.) There is so much more work to be done to revitalize the state’s economy, stabilize its revenue base, and stop the citizen drain: If we are to have any hope of progress, we must demand our leaders forgo their egos and work together to make it happen.

At the local level, we have counselors proposing nonsensical mandates, such as more »

I apologize to viewers for the 15 minutes of bulletin board while we waited for subcommittee members to arrive, and I want to thank the students and staff from Lowell Educational Television who broadcast the meeting on channel 22.  I won’t go into everything we covered, but I feel compelled to relate some of the discussion regarding the impact of attendance initiatives (see LHS report) and the subsequent action, which I found particularly disturbing: that is, the motion by Regina Faticanti, seconded by Dave Conway, to suspend ONE Lowell activities at the high school. The motion passed on a 2-1 vote and will be brought before the entire committee at next Wednesday’s meeting (UPDATE: meeting postponed until March 19). ONE Lowell is an organization that serves the city’s immigrant families in a number of areas. For the last few years, the nonprofit agency has worked with the school district regarding student attendance (they are currently involved with truant students and their families from all but one of our middle schools as well as the high school). Funded completely by grants, the group improves student attendance at no cost to the district on a referral basis—schools refer severely truant students, parents sign waivers to allow the agency’s involvement, and ONE Lowell’s bilingual staff visit with families and refer them to other programs and services as needed to get their children to attend school. In many cases, attendance does improve for these individuals as this report demonstrates. My colleagues and some administrators at the high school are not happy with the group’s lack of providing narrative reports on individual students, which apparently prompted the motion to suspend their activities—an extreme reaction to a communication issue that does not appear to be in the best interest of these students. Despite all our budget problems and our struggles with student attendance, dropout, and retention rates, apparently some folks feel we don’t need ONE Lowell’s help. I respectfully disagree.

Check out the city council meeting tonight (6:30 pm on Channel 10) to see how our elected officials vote on the residency requirement.  I have an instinctive dislike of such a motion; it seems xenophobic and petty to me, and I have a few questions about it.  First of all, why are we even wasting time on this?  I don’t recall this coming up on any councilor’s campaign platform.  I don’t think it has much to do with economic development, neighborhood improvement plans, or ‘giving back to the city.’  As someone who is very concerned about our public school system, I am glad to know that teachers (and all union employees) are exempt from such a requirement.  It’s my understanding that whatever the council decides tonight will not impact school hiring, even for non-union employees.  I want to know that our schools can hire the best and most qualified candidates for the job, regardless of where they live.  Why shouldn’t that be the most important requirement for any city job?

It’s funny, but there was a motion to have a residency requirement for the superintendent search committee that failed with very little support.  Mayor Caulfield spoke out vehemently against it, asking why we should deny ourselves the services of a CEO of a company who might live in Andover or why we should restrict Chancellor Marty Meehan from choosing the most qualified person from his staff to be on the committee, someone who might not live in Lowell.  The same logic should apply to hiring anyone who works for the city. (To see what Councilor Caulfield had to say on the residency requirement when it was debated back in 1994, see this interesting post by Dick Howe.)

 I’ll certainly be watching to see how the Mayor (and the rest of the council) votes tonight!